§ MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the action of Judge Ruegg at Tunstall, who upon application from an old man who was receiving compensation at the rate of 12s. 6d. a week converted that annuity into a lump sum of £20 and a reduced annuity of 9s. 6d. a week in order to enable the applicant to obtain a pension under the Bill recently before this House; whether that Bill contains any provisions which will either render penal or neutralise the effect of such arrangements for increasing the burden upon the taxpayers; and, if not, whether he will introduce Amendments to the Bill in another place dealing with the matter.
§ MR. HOBHOUSE (for Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE)Clause 4 (3) of the Bill is designed to "neutralise the effect" of such arrangements as that referred to in the Question.
§ MR. HAROLD COXWill that clause be retrospective in action?
§ MR. HOBHOUSEI cannot answer for the moment.